Under Massachusetts law, the word revenge is defined as; acceptance of the employer and the adverse action against an employee as a result of some form of security personnel activities. Retribution – a separate claim for discrimination, it can be found in Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B. The word revenge is not actually used in the law, but the courts usually use this word as a short word about the anti-discrimination statutes. Law provides for liability against retaliation against individuals, and not just the employers.
According to Massachusetts law, 151B, there are two different sub-sections, which prohibit unauthorized places, and it §4 (4) and §4 (4A). § 4 (4) state; "Any person, organization of work of the employer or employment agency must release, exclude, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he is opposed to any practices that are prohibited in this chapter, either because he filed a complaint, testified, assisted in any the procedures provided for in section fifth MGL 151B §4 (4). " §4 (4A) MGL 151B asserts that; "For anyone to force, intimidate, threaten or interfere with another person to carry or use any right granted or protected by this Chapter or to force, intimidate, threaten or interfere with such other person for providing assistance or encouragement of any other person in the implementation or use some such right. "
Under "Bulk practice" 8:30 says that to establish the case for revenge plaintiff must show that he / she is engaged in legitimate security activity and that he suffered from adverse actions on employment and that a causal link exists between the legally protected conduct and the adverse effects on employment. In order to succeed in affirming relationships, they must show the following;
- The plaintiff must prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that his employer engaged in unlawful discrimination.
- He acted reasonably in response to this representation
- The fact that the employer's desire to take revenge, he became the determining factor in taking adverse action on employment.
To the plaintiff to prove the first reason for seeking revenge, they must show that they took part in the act protected in accordance with Paragraph 4 (4) of Chapter 151B, as well as those who are opposed to any practice prohibited by MGL c. 151B, and those who make complaints or assist in any proceedings before the MCAD (Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination), they are known as the "opposition" and "vdelnitstvy".
Application of the opposition point can be tricky because the employee must assert that the behavior in response was due to the opposition of the employee practice prohibited by MGL c. 151B.
It refers to the participation in the trial in Moscow, and c.151B not extend to participation in internal investigations of discrimination when it is not protected by the opposition participated, for example, assisting or encouraging another employee in the exercise of the rights of the employee.